New Muslim

[Esanta]

context please. I never said someone has no right to speak here. I might have said 'not being a christian, you are not an authority on a certain topic...like regeneration'.

The bible isn't limited to being read by professed Christians, and Christian perspectives are only part of the many various interpretations of what the bible's saying, so in reality, if I've read the book and come to a belief thereof, I'm every bit as qualified to comment on it as you are. Just because you restrict authoritative permissions to those who take on the label 'Christian' doesn't mean that Christians are objectively the only people with biblical understanding sufficient enough to enable them to make informed arguments regarding the text. That's where my gripe with this practice comes from.

If the original poster here had been a professed Muslim, and came to talk about historical things (which she did), her religious professions have virtually no bearing on the validity of her historical arguments, and if she'd happened to have read the bible and understood it, her arguments would be every bit as open to scrutiny as yours are. Her being Muslim does not automatically disqualify her arguments from being considered.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I can fabricate many interpretations of what you just wrote which, of course, doesn't make any of them true.

The point is that your assertion one can read the Bible (or any book for that matter) and "come to a belief thereof" automatically makes them qualified to make true statements with respect to it is false.

You can comment on it if you have the ability to do so but that doesn't mean your comments are true. The mere reading of any book doesn't necessarily make you qualified to make true statements with respect to it.

Which, of course, is observable as so many people make all kinds of false assertions about things they read (whether or not they align their beliefs in some way with what they're reading). Liberal religious "scholars" are a perfect example of what I'm talking. One of them is screeding that "God is a white racist." A perfect case in point.

That said, certainly people who truly represent what they read (e.g. make statements that align with objective truth with respect to what they are reading whether or not what they are reading be accurate or in error) ARE qualified to comment accurately on what they're reading... people like myself for example... lol .

The bible isn't limited to being read by professed Christians, and Christian perspectives are only part of the many various interpretations of what the bible's saying, so in reality, if I've read the book and come to a belief thereof, I'm every bit as qualified to comment on it as you are. Just because you restrict authoritative permissions to those who take on the label 'Christian' doesn't mean that Christians are objectively the only people with biblical understanding sufficient enough to enable them to make informed arguments regarding the text. That's where my gripe with this practice comes from.

If the original poster here had been a professed Muslim, and came to talk about historical things (which she did), her religious professions have virtually no bearing on the validity of her historical arguments, and if she'd happened to have read the bible and understood it, her arguments would be every bit as open to scrutiny as yours are. Her being Muslim does not automatically disqualify her arguments from being considered.

 

[crossnote]

The bible isn't limited to being read by professed Christians, and Christian perspectives are only part of the many various interpretations of what the bible's saying, so in reality, if I've read the book and come to a belief thereof, I'm every bit as qualified to comment on it as you are. Just because you restrict authoritative permissions to those who take on the label 'Christian' doesn't mean that Christians are objectively the only people with biblical understanding sufficient enough to enable them to make informed arguments regarding the text. That's where my gripe with this practice comes from.

If the original poster here had been a professed Muslim, and came to talk about historical things (which she did), her religious professions have virtually no bearing on the validity of her historical arguments, and if she'd happened to have read the bible and understood it, her arguments would be every bit as open to scrutiny as yours are. Her being Muslim does not automatically disqualify her arguments from being considered.

The bible makes the same pronouncement as I made...

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
(1Co 2:10-16)

Now if you start playing the game 'any interpretation goes' then the bible becomes meaningless because you have taken out the concept of Absolute Truth which we as Christians hold to.

 

[Esanta]

I can fabricate many interpretations of what you just wrote which, of course, doesn't make any of them true.

The point is that your assertion one can read the Bible (or any book for that matter) and "come to a belief thereof" automatically makes them qualified to make true statements with respect to it is false.

You can comment on it if you have the ability to do so but that doesn't mean your comments are true. The mere reading of any book doesn't necessarily make you qualified to make true statements with respect to it.

Which, of course, is observable as so many people make all kinds of false assertions about things they read (whether or not they align their beliefs in some way with what they're reading). Liberal religious "scholars" are a perfect example of what I'm talking. One of them is screeding that "God is a white racist." A perfect case in point.

That said, certainly people who truly represent what they read (e.g. make statements that align with objective truth with respect to what they are reading whether or not what they are reading be accurate or in error) ARE qualified to comment accurately on what they're reading... people like myself for example... lol .

Translation; only people who agree with AoK's biblical interpretations, or ''objective truth'', can make valid biblical arguments worthy of being considered. AoK is the most objective translator here, and anyone who disagrees is quite clearly Liberal scum.

AoK, a piece of text wherein at any point no particular definite conclusion can be made since there is room for several interpretations some of which even contradict others means that litigious literalism of one interpretation is bound to sit in polarity with litigious literalism of another interpretation. You're no more right than anyone else who reads the bible and thinks they're absolutely right.

If you're a staunch trinitarian, as opposed to a staunch unitarian, I see validity in both arguments; both can be argued well, can be argued convincingly and no distinctive conclusion can really be merited more than the other, from an unbiased perspective of the text.

 

[Bowman]

If you're a staunch trinitarian, as opposed to a staunch unitarian, I see validity in both arguments; both can be argued well, can be argued convincingly and no distinctive conclusion can really be merited more than the other, from an unbiased perspective of the text.

Disagree, totally.

Unitarian arguments are based on scriptural ignorance, pet verses, and taking scripture out of context.

Islam, the world's largest Christian cult, ignorantly denies their own Trinitarian-based Koran.

Judaism denies their Trinitarian-based Tanak.

JW's, Oneness, Christadelphians, Mormon, etc, etc. are all scripturally ignorant.

The only theological group to correctly interpret their scripture set are Trinitarian Christians.

Narrow is the path...

 

[prodigal]

[h=1]Mark 12:30-31New International Version (NIV)[/h] [SUP]30 [/SUP]Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[SUP][a][/SUP] [SUP]31 [/SUP]The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[SUP][b][/SUP] There is no commandment greater than these.”

wonder if that means speaking to other as i would like them to speak to me............

BLESSINGS

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Lol @ Esanta.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm truly sorry that you have become ensnared by a false religious system that is both dangerous to its adherents and those they victimize. Your historical understanding of the Hellenization of the Palestine appears to be somewhat accurate; however, your understanding of who and what Jesus Christ actually is couldn't be more wrong.

In brief, Jesus claimed to be God and proved to be God. He proved it by a convergence of three unprecedented sets of miracles: fulfilled prophecy, a miraculous life, and his resurrection from the dead. This unique convergence of supernatural events not only confirms his claim to be God in human flesh, but it also demonstrates Jesus' claim to be the only way to God. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me" (John 14:6; cf. 10:1,9-10). Jesus' apostles added, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12; cf. 1 Tim. 2:s).

No other world religious leader has been confirmed by a convergence of unique miracles as Jesus has. Indeed, as we have seen (in Chapter 8), Muhammad refused to perform miracles like Jesus did to support his claim (see 3:181-84). In fact, no other world religious leader claimed to be God, including Muhammad. And, regardless of what they claimed for themselves, no other world religious leader ever proved his claims by fulfilling numerous prophecies made hundreds of years in advance, living a miraculous and sinless life, and predicting and accomplishing his own resurrection from the dead. Thus, Jesus alone deserves to be recognized as the Son of God, God incarnated in human flesh.

I understand both religious worldviews well and will be happy to debate you using a wealth of scholarly and historical evidences to show you that you are wrong and the Bible is the correct revelation of God. Islamic views about the Bible are critically flawed. Contrary to the overwhelming manuscript evidence. All the Gospels are preserved in the Chester Beatty Papyri, dated about A.D. 250. And the vast majority of the New Testament exists in the Vaticanus Ms. (B) that dates from about A.D. 325-50.

In addition there are nearly 5,700 other manuscripts of the New Testament dating from the second century A.D. to the fifteenth century (hundreds of which are from before the time of Muhammad) that confirm the same substantial text of the whole New Testament existing in Muhammad's day.

The New Testament text of Muhammad's day is confirmed by these same manuscripts to be the same basic New Testament text of Jesus' day. For these manuscripts provide an unbroken chain of testimony to the very threshold of the first century for the authenticity of the New Testament text we possess today. For example, the earliest fragment of the New Testament, the John Ryland Fragment, is dated about A.D. 117-38. It preserves verses from John 18 just as they are found in later manuscripts and in today's New Testament.

Likewise, the Bodmer Papyri from the second century A.D. preserve the whole books of Peter and Jude as we have them today. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the New Testament message was destroyed or distorted, as Muslims claim it was. Muslims use liberal critics of the New Testament in an attempt to show that the New Testament was corrupted, misplaced, and outdated. However, the Gospel record was written well within the lives of the apostles, somewhere between 40 and 60 A.D and that is provable. Negative New Testament criticism, which holds that the New Testament as preserved in the manuscripts does not accurately preserve the words and deeds of Jesus, is defunct.

I'm just getting warmed up. Prepare to be soundly refuted and introduced to the truth simultaneously. You'll have trouble trying to execute me for using historical manuscripts to refute your false assertions and educate you with the truth; however, as I live in a nation that doesn't sanction the murder of people for defending the truth and pointing out the errors of Islam so please do take this opportunity to learn.

Hello everyone
i am new here and i am muslim.
I would love to be friend with you and if you have any question on islam and muslims feel free to ask or pm me
Shalom

 

[jasonbestmc]

shalom follow him he keep the righness pray like him eat live talk like him!!!

 

[kaylagrl]

Muslims hold the historical Jesus in high esteem. Muslims view this prophet's mission as freeing Palestine from 900 years of Indo-Aryan (aka Persians, Greeks and Romans) military, political and cultural occupation. These foreign ideas included philosophic influences as the Greek/Stoic logos, incarnated deities (avatars), offspring of deities (demigods), vicarious atonement (Promethian crucifixion & self sacrifice) and nirvana (oneness with the deity-Jhn 14 & 17)) which contradicted the Torah. These Indo-Aryan ideas were infiltrating the native Palestinian culture in the form of gnosticism. The religious leaders of the temple cult became a bunch of Roman collaborators who compromised the Torah in return for foreign favor and wealth. Muslims do not agree with the Jewish-Hellenized syncretism which turned this historical prophet into a demigod like Perseus, an avatar of Deus Pater and a sacrificial victim like the Titan Prometheus. Vicarious atonement was explicitly forbidden in Deut 24:16 which states: "Every man shall be put to death for HIS OWN SIN." The religion and life of Jesus must be viewed in its historical Semitic context and not thru the lens of the Roman church which twisted the history and mission of this 1st Century Palestinian into a model of a Roman (Indo-Aryan) demigod.

You are taking Deut. 24:16 out of context...it states Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.

It doesnt say each man will die for their own sin.It says parents wont die for the sins of their child nor the child die for parents sins.Totally different then what you stated.

 

[A_Friend_In_Christ]

Christian chat.

 

[AziziLoveChrist]

Christian chat.

christianchat.com

 

[Elin]

Muslims hold the historical Jesus in high esteem.

The religion and life of Jesus must be viewed in its historical Semitic context and not thru the lens of the Roman church which twisted the history and mission of this 1st Century Palestinian into a model of a Roman (Indo-Aryan) demigod.

Is Mohammed's grave empty?
Jesus' grave is empty.

And when viewed in its historical Semitic context recorded by his own Semitic apostles,
we find the following claims personally made by Jesus himself.

• He came from heaven (Jn 3;13, 6:38, 42, 62)
• and was sent by God (Jn 5:36-40, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28)
• to die as a ransom for the sins of many (Mt 20:28, 26:28, Jn 10:11),
• with power to forgive sin (Mt 9:2-6),
• to conquer Satan (Jn 12:31; Lk 10:18; Mk 1:23-26, 5:6-13),
• to speak for God (Jn 7:16, 8:25-28, 12:44-45, 49-50, 14:10, Lk 9:35, 10:16),
• and to judge all mankind (Jn 5:22, 27, 8:26, 12:48, Mt 25:31-33),
• as the exclusive way to God (Jn 14:6; Ac 4:12) - excludes all other ways(including Mohammed),

• the source of all truth and life (Jn 1:4, 5:25-26, 6:39-40),
• the decisive factor in the eternal destiny of every man (Jn 3:18-19, 36, 5:24, 6:40, 8:24-25),
• possessing all authority (power) in heaven and earth (Mt 26:64, 28:18; Lk 10:22, Jn 13:3, 13),
• would rise from the dead in three days (Mt 12:40, 16:21, 17:23, 27:63; Lk 24:6-8; Jn 20:9)
• equal with God (Jn 5:18, 8:19, 12:44-45, 14:7-9, 16:15, 17:10); i.e., doing what God does (Jn 5:19)
  • as the Father works, so the Son works (miracles) - (Jn 5:17)
  • as the Father gives life, so the Son gives life (Jn 5:21)
  • as the Father is Judge, so the Son is Judge (Jn 5:22)
  • as the Father is to be honored, so the Son is to be honored (Jn 5:23)
  • as the Father has (eternal) life in himself, so the Son has (eternal) life in himself (Jn 5:26)
  • as the Father sends with authority and power, so the Son sends with authority and power (Jn 20:21)
  • as the Father confers the kingdom, so the Son confers the kingdom (Lk 22:29)
  • as the Father is Lawgiver, so the Son is Lawgiver (Mt 5:23-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27, chp 23),
  • whose name is Emmanuel, which is "God with us" (Mt 1:23),
• empowering the apostles to speak for him, as well as for God (Lk 10:16, Jn 13:20)
• and to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).

And remember, Jesus said he was speaking exactly what God told him to say
when he made all these claims about himself (Jn 12:49).

Jesus is saying in these staggering claims that he is no less than God.

And that is precisely the way the Jews (who were there) understood him
(Mk 2:3-7; Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18, 8:58-59; 19:7), which is why they had him killed.

What say ye of Jesus' personal claims?

 

[Elin]

Format correction:

Muslims hold the historical Jesus in high esteem.

The religion and life of Jesus must be viewed in its historical Semitic context and not thru the lens of the Roman church which twisted the history and mission of this 1st Century Palestinian into a model of a Roman (Indo-Aryan) demigod.

Is Mohammed's grave empty?
Jesus' grave is empty.

And when viewed in its historical Semitic context recorded by his own Semitic apostles,
we find the following claims personally made by Jesus himself.

• He came from heaven (Jn 3:13, 6:38, 42, 62)
• and was sent by God (Jn 5:36-40, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28)
• to die as a ransom for the sins of many (Mt 20:28, 26:28, Jn 10:11),
• with power to forgive sin (Mt 9:2-6),
• to conquer Satan (Jn 12:31; Lk 10:18; Mk 1:23-26, 5:6-13),
• to speak for God (Jn 7:16, 8:25-28, 12:44-45, 49-50, 14:10, Lk 9:35, 10:16),
• and to judge all mankind (Jn 5:22, 27, 8:26, 12:48, Mt 25:31-33),
• as the exclusive way to God (Jn 14:6; Ac 4:12) - excludes all other ways (including Mohammed),
• the source of all truth and life (Jn 1:4, 5:25-26, 6:39-40),
• the decisive factor in the eternal destiny of every man (Jn 3:18-19, 36, 5:24, 6:40, 8:24-25),
• possessing all authority (power) in heaven and earth (Mt 26:64, 28:18; Lk 10:22, Jn 13:3, 13),
• would rise from the dead in three days (Mt 12:40, 16:21, 17:23, 27:63; Lk 24:6-8; Jn 20:9)
• equal with God (Jn 5:18, 8:19, 12:44-45, 14:7-9, 16:15, 17:10); i.e., doing what God does (Jn 5:19)
  • as the Father works, so the Son works (miracles) - (Jn 5:17)
  • as the Father gives life, so the Son gives life (Jn 5:21)
  • as the Father is Judge, so the Son is Judge (Jn 5:22)
  • as the Father is to be honored, so the Son is to be honored (Jn 5:23)
  • as the Father has (eternal) life in himself, so the Son has (eternal) life in himself (Jn 5:26)
  • as the Father sends with authority and power, so the Son sends with authority and power (Jn 20:21)
  • as the Father confers the kingdom, so the Son confers the kingdom (Lk 22:29)
  • as the Father is Lawgiver, so the Son is Lawgiver (Mt 5:23-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27, chp 23),
  • whose name is Emmanuel, which is "God with us" (Mt 1:23),
• empowering the apostles to speak for him, as well as for God (Lk 10:16, Jn 13:20)
• and to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).

And remember, Jesus said he was speaking exactly what God told him to say
when he made all these claims about himself (Jn 12:49).

Jesus is saying in these staggering claims that he is no less than God.

And that is precisely the way the Jews (who were there) understood him
(Mk 2:3-7; Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18, 8:58-59; 19:7), which is why they had him killed.

What say ye of Jesus' personal claims?

 

[AziziLoveChrist]

Format correction:

Is Mohammed's grave empty?
Jesus' grave is empty.

And when viewed in its historical Semitic context recorded by his own Semitic apostles,
we find the following claims personally made by Jesus himself.

• He came from heaven (Jn 3:13, 6:38, 42, 62)
• and was sent by God (Jn 5:36-40, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28)
• to die as a ransom for the sins of many (Mt 20:28, 26:28, Jn 10:11),
• with power to forgive sin (Mt 9:2-6),
• to conquer Satan (Jn 12:31; Lk 10:18; Mk 1:23-26, 5:6-13),
• to speak for God (Jn 7:16, 8:25-28, 12:44-45, 49-50, 14:10, Lk 9:35, 10:16),
• and to judge all mankind (Jn 5:22, 27, 8:26, 12:48, Mt 25:31-33),
• as the exclusive way to God (Jn 14:6; Ac 4:12) - excludes all other ways (including Mohammed),
• the source of all truth and life (Jn 1:4, 5:25-26, 6:39-40),
• the decisive factor in the eternal destiny of every man (Jn 3:18-19, 36, 5:24, 6:40, 8:24-25),
• possessing all authority (power) in heaven and earth (Mt 26:64, 28:18; Lk 10:22, Jn 13:3, 13),
• would rise from the dead in three days (Mt 12:40, 16:21, 17:23, 27:63; Lk 24:6-8; Jn 20:9)
• equal with God (Jn 5:18, 8:19, 12:44-45, 14:7-9, 16:15, 17:10); i.e., doing what God does (Jn 5:19)
  • as the Father works, so the Son works (miracles) - (Jn 5:17)
  • as the Father gives life, so the Son gives life (Jn 5:21)
  • as the Father is Judge, so the Son is Judge (Jn 5:22)
  • as the Father is to be honored, so the Son is to be honored (Jn 5:23)
  • as the Father has (eternal) life in himself, so the Son has (eternal) life in himself (Jn 5:26)
  • as the Father sends with authority and power, so the Son sends with authority and power (Jn 20:21)
  • as the Father confers the kingdom, so the Son confers the kingdom (Lk 22:29)
  • as the Father is Lawgiver, so the Son is Lawgiver (Mt 5:23-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27, chp 23),
  • whose name is Emmanuel, which is "God with us" (Mt 1:23),
• empowering the apostles to speak for him, as well as for God (Lk 10:16, Jn 13:20)
• and to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).

And remember, Jesus said he was speaking exactly what God told him to say
when he made all these claims about himself (Jn 12:49).

Jesus is saying in these staggering claims that he is no less than God.

And that is precisely the way the Jews (who were there) understood him
(Mk 2:3-7; Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18, 8:58-59; 19:7), which is why they had him killed.

What say ye of Jesus' personal claims?

no matter how many times u tell them , they wount listen !

 

[A_Friend_In_Christ]

I don't understand?

 

[A_Friend_In_Christ]

Bring people to Jesus right?

 

[Elin]

Ad hominem arguments are the refuge of bigots. List your objections to my research and I shall reply.

So our infamous old troll is now morphed into a new muslim.

 

[Enoch_Scriptures33]

Hello santa, I want to make my requests for this next 'christmas'.....I want ALL muslims, islamists and mohammed loving scumbags to leave planet earth.

Sincerely
an American Jew.

 

[Elin]

Hello santa, I want to make my requests for this next 'christmas'.....I want ALL muslims, islamists and mohammed loving scumbags to leave planet earth.

Sincerely
an American Jew.

That's puttin' the hay where the goats can get it. . .